I AGREE.

However, this *Pluto/Charon* business seemed to have been traumatic for many stargazers, et al., in recent years, and I think that it ought to be a marvelous subject for discussion here. Also, as you might note, I tend to be pretty stubborn about some things. This is not meant to mean that I am correct, but only that I am exceedingly stubborn. I am capable of change, but never quote me on that.

Perhaps if the astronomers had been (in the past) more particular in their designations, this problem would never have occurred to bother so many people. Astronomy is perhaps the most ancient of the sciences, so many bad habits have been produced by ancient astronomers and their descendants.

One possible criterion in categorizing a planet of the Sun might be that such planet would need to have developed together in the plane of the other major planets (in the thought-to-have-been primordial disk of our young Sun). I think that there is a need for careful designations. Moons should not be considered as planets. Late-coming additions to the planetary designations might have a hyphenated title to show this new classification.

Classifications of astronomical objects pertain to science and not to popularity polls. When an astronomical object is found to have been mistakenly named as one kind of object but is later found actually to have been another kind of object, scientists should stick to scientific methods and reclassify the object. Perhaps there needs to be a reclassification of all objects for scientific purposes only. Those same objects should be able (by the public) to be called whatever the public would wish to call them. Of course, this would most likely end in confusion (mixed with intense anger and fisticuffs) for everyone concerned.

Science evolves as it grows. I do not think that astronomy could be called a science if arbitrary rules prevailed in the science of astronomy itself which would never be followed (for instance) in physics. But physics is a relative newcomer (once considered a *natural philosophy*), particularly when considering some of its most recent discoveries.

Perhaps we should leave it up to the astronomers to make these decisions and go along with them if they make good sense. Tradition has no place in science. Remember the earth-centered universe and the problems involved where burning at the stake was (tragically) a probable punishment for challenging tradition (i.e., as in the case of Giordano Bruno). Astronomy has both serious and casual adherents. Professional astronomers cannot possibly please them all. The problem here, I think, is that there are so many astronomy lovers, casual, amateur, and professional (along with astrophysicists and cosmologists who are often off in a world of their own). Change is catastrophic to some people where astronomy is more like a religion than a science. I find change exhiliarating -- always have and always will. However, most people (understandably) seem to abhor change.

Now, I am not here specifically criticizing anyone. I just think that perhaps it is time for astronomers to be permitted scientifically to develop theories concerning these matters. Not being a scientist, myself, I shall leave that up to the scientists. I also think that controversy can be enlightening for all. Perhaps astronomers should keep all changes *under wraps* to avoid frightening everybody else. But *the truth will out*, eventually.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]


P.S. I stubbornly refuse (incorrectly, despite the cries of horror by the punctuation police) to put commas and periods inside of parentheses, unless such commas and periods are a part of the quotation. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-01-06 16:31 ]</font>